This
cause is before the Court on the Defendant/Counterclaim
Plaintiff's (“Flippin”) Motion to Stay
Discovery, Briefing, and Hearing on Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant's (“Herff Jones”) Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 20), Flippin's Objection
to the Magistrate Judge's Order on Discovery Dispute
(Dkt. Nos. 35), Herff Jones's Motion to Stay Entry of
Case Management Deadlines Pending Ruling on Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 10), and its Motion for Stay
of Briefing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No.
45). Flippin's Motion to Stay Discovery, Briefing, and
Hearing on Herff Jones's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction is fully briefed, and the Court has reviewed Herff
Jones's response to Flippin's objections regarding
the Order on Discovery Dispute.[1]See Dkt. No. 46. Flippin
filed a Case Management Plan in response to Herff Jones's
Motion to Stay Entry of Case Management Deadlines Pending
Ruling on Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See
Dkt. No. 11. The Court, being duly advised, addresses the
motions below.

I.
BACKGROUND

Herff
Jones manufactures and sells, through its authorized
independent distributors, motivational and recognition
products, including graduation caps and gowns, diplomas, and
school jewelry, to schools. Flippin was hired by Herff Jones
as an independent contractor to act as a sales representative
for Herff Jones's products and services within a
three-county territory in California. To memorialize the
arrangement, Flippin and Herff Jones entered into a
Scholastic Sales Representative Agreement (the
“Agreement”) on or around April 15, 2011. The
Agreement could be terminated at the option of either party
upon sixty days written notice to the other party. Flippin
notified Herff Jones on May 22, 2017, that she intended to
terminate the Agreement and resign effective July 21, 2017.

Herff
Jones filed a lawsuit against Flippin in the Marion County,
Indiana Superior Court on August 10, 2017, seeking a
temporary restraining order and other preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, after it learned that Flippin
intended to work for Jostens, Inc., a competitor of Herff
Jones.[2] That lawsuit was removed to this Court on
September 29, 2017. See Dkt. No. 1. Following
removal to this Court, Herff Jones filed a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.

II.
DISCUSSION

A.
Preliminary Injunction Matters

Flippin
requests that this Court stay all discovery, briefing, and
the hearing on Herff Jones's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction until final judgment is issued in Potlongo v.
Herff Jones, Cause No. 8:17-cv-1624-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.
filed Sept. 18, 2017). She contends that a stay is
appropriate here because, in Potlongo, “the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California has enjoined Herff Jones from enforcing or taking
any action to enforce the very same contractual provisions
that Herff Jones is seeking to enforce in this matter.”
Dkt. No. 20 at 1. The District Court in Potlongo
determined in a preliminary ruling that both the Option to
Purchase and Covenant Not to Compete provisions of the
agreement at issue in that case were unenforceable, and it
enjoined Herff Jones from enforcing those provisions pending
final resolution of the case.[3]See Dkt. No. 20 at 13.
Flippin argues that, because the same provisions appear in
her Agreement with Herff Jones, this Court should defer to
the Potlongo court: “Herff Jones should not be
allowed to circumvent the Potlongo Injunction by seeking
discovery in this case, which it would not otherwise be
allowed to request, or to attempt to enforce the very same
illegal contractual provisions against Flippin, which it
would be unable to do in California.” Dkt. No. 34 at 2.
She concludes that “it is more efficient to stay this
case while waiting for the Ninth Circuit to issue its
decision on the Potlongo Order.” Dkt. No. 20 at 17.

Flippin
also objects to the Order on Discovery Dispute in this matter
“because [the Order] requires Flippin to produce a
substantial amount of information in discovery about a
contract which has been deemed a ‘sham' and/or
unenforceable by two separate courts, prior to this Court
resolving the threshold matter of the illegality of the
contract which Herff Jones attempts to enforce.” Dkt.
No. 35 at 1. She repeatedly claims that “the threshold
issue in this case is the enforceability of Herff Jones'
Option and Non-Compete against California citizens such as
Flippin.”[4]See Dkt. No. 35 at 3; see
also Id. at 4 (referring again to “the threshold
issue”); id. at 5 (stating that “what
this Court must first determine is whether the relevant
clauses of the Agreement are void and illegal”);
id. at 6 (arguing that “discovery in support
of the PI motion remains premature unless and until this
Court rules on the enforceability of the Agreement and the
specific Option and Non-Compete clauses at issue”), and
id. at 7 (again discussing “the threshold
issue of the legality of the covenants that Herff Jones seeks
to enforce”).

The
Court disagrees. It is not necessary for the Court to
determine as a threshold matter whether the option and
non-compete provisions in Flippin's Agreement are
enforceable. Nor is it necessary to stay all discovery,
briefing, and the hearing on Herff Jones's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction until final judgment is issued in the
California court or until this Court determines whether the
option and non-compete provisions in Flippin's Agreement
are enforceable. As Flippin acknowledges, “Herff Jones
seeks to enjoin Flippin from soliciting or accepting business
from the clients she managed while a sales representative at
Herff Jones, pursuant to the terms of her Herff Jones
Scholastic Sales Representative Agreement.” Dkt. No. 8
at 1. Herff Jones, however, also seeks to enjoin Flippin
“from continuing her ongoing misappropriation and
unauthorized use of confidential information and trade
secrets belonging to Herff Jones.” Id. Herff
Jones brings a claim of breach of contract regarding the
confidential information provision of Flippin's
Agreement, section 10.4, and a claim under Indiana Code
§ 24-2-3-2, Indiana's Trade Secrets law. Whether the
options or non-compete provisions are unenforceable does not
affect these claims, and that determination is certainly not
a “threshold issue” that must be decided prior to
ruling on Herff Jones's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. For these reasons alone, staying all progress on
Herff Jones's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is
inappropriate. And, even if Herff Jones brought claims under
the options and non-compete provisions alone, the Court here
would need to examine those contract provisions, and the rest
of the Agreement along with all other evidence presented, as
part of its preliminary injunction analysis - just as the
California and Marion County courts did. As Herff Jones
correctly points out, “while [the California and Marion
County courts'] decisions and the rationale behind them
certainly may be argued as persuasive, that is something for
the parties to brief and argue to the Court and ultimately
for this Court to decide - the decisions themselves are not
binding on this Court.” Dkt. No. 33 at 7.

Having
considered Flippin's objections to the Order on Discovery
Dispute and the Motion to Stay Discovery, Briefing, and
Hearing on [the] Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court
OVERRULES Flippin's Objection to
Magistrate Judge's Order on Discovery Dispute (Dkt. No.
35) and DENIES the Motion to Stay Discovery,
Briefing, and Hearing on Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No.
20). Discovery, briefing, and the hearing on Herff
Jones's Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall proceed.
Flippin's supplemental responses to the Document Requests
as discussed in the Order on Discovery Dispute, including the
documents themselves and a privilege log, shall now be served
by the close of business December 22, 2018.
Herff Jones's brief in support of its Motion for
Preliminary Injunction is due January 15,
2018; Flippin's response is due January
29, 2018; and Herff Jones's reply is due
February 5, 2018. The preliminary injunction
hearing is hereby scheduled for Friday, March 9, 2018
at 9:00 a.m. in Room 202 of the Birch Bayh Federal Courthouse
in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Court hereby
DENIES AS MOOT Herff Jones's Motion to
Stay Briefing on its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt.
No. 45).

B.
Case Management Plan Deadlines

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Herff
Jones also seeks to stay the entry of case management
deadlines pending a ruling on its Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. It argues that the Agreement permits this Court
to rule on preliminary injunctive relief, but requires all
matters other than injunctive relieve to be submitted to
arbitration. Following a ruling on its Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, Herff Jones submits that it will file a motion to
stay proceedings and compel arbitration of all remaining
disputes. Flippin filed a proposed case management plan in
response. See Dkt. No. 11. In her Case Management
Plan, Flippin explained that Herff Jones is simultaneously
seeking equitable relief in arbitration. Flippin objects to
such relief through arbitration &ldquo;on the basis that the
Arbitrator lack[s] jurisdiction to hear matters relating to
equitable relief.&rdquo; Dkt. No. 11 at 10. Flippin also
informed this Court that the parties have briefed the issue
in arbitration, but &ldquo;the Arbitrator has not yet decided
whether he can preside over the preliminary injunction
hearing.&rdquo; Id. Flippin has not indicated to
this Court ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.